Talk:Invention of the telephone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've tried to organize this page a little better, but there's still a lot of work to be done, particularly in the "Controversy" section. I just don't have the time right now.--Osprey39 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There's really nothing that needs to be done other than revert all of the changes made by 82.53.20.243 (talk · contribs) on the 17th, which can only be described as breathtakingly inaccurate. (Among other things, Western Union was a bitter competitor of Bell's during the 19th century, which backed Elisha Gray's claims of invention--they were the last company in the entire world that would be interested in helping Bell "organize a world business." And the notion that "in the USA, Bell is today widely recognized as a thief" would surely come as a great surprise to anyone who actually lives in the United States.) I've reverted Mr. 82's changes, which should take care of the problems with the article. --phh 09:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good.--Osprey39 09:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Meucci & Sidetone 2 Par condicio 3 Cribbed 4 Intercom 5 Russian Inventor? 6 Article contains POV 7 The dispute is not disputed 8 Chronology of Meucci's invention 9 Tone of writing

[edit] Meucci & Sidetone

The remarks on Meucci's uspposed invention of an anti-sidetone circuit were at best highly misleading. Meucci avoided sidetone by having tone separate circuits, not by inventing a sidetone-cancelling circuit. —12.72.74.86 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Par condicio

OK, but just for "par condicio." We should complete the part about Meucci s life and his numerous inventions. From 1833 to 1850 Meucci invented over 30 different models of telephone!!! --Jack 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cribbed

Much of this article is cribbed from Munro, "Heroes of the Telegraph" (public domain). There's a reference, but it could be made more obvious.--Kbk 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intercom

Found by accident. Sold for $6. Never set anything down. Bell created it, stole the ideas of Elisha Gray and developed the phone. Regards of the Italian-American lobby, Meucci's invention was at best an intercom, and there were no signs that he would have developed it. Londo06 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Inventor?

i found a little note in my mind, remembering myself that there was a russian aristocrate who tried to present the telephone to the russian czar anywhere around 1850, but was laughed at and suspected to cheat when he presented his work. maybe someone can lighten my mind and confirm/deny my thoughts? (sry my english, i know this sentences are twisted but i think you'll understand :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.125.115.10 (talk) 11:53, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article contains POV

Besides being "cribbed" from another source which is a charitable way of saying "copied," the article is a piece of revisionist propaganda with inaccurate information. For example, the sentence stating Meucci "was recognized by US Congress on 11th June 2002 as the true inventor" was nothing of the sort. The wholly spurious legislation introduced by a decidely biased representative did not come close to establishing this claim. All that was established was that Meucci did some preliminary work on a telephone. His "tin can on a string" invention was nowhere near a true telephone and the sad history of the Meucci claims have long since been repudiated, even in his lifetime. For a hoot,read about the genesis of the bill and you will get a feeling for the duplicitous nature of the proceedings. The claim that Bell stole the telephone from Elisha Gray continues the "conspiracy" nonsense that is so prevalent with non-historians. FWIWBzuk 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

This article is biased. Wikipedia should state facts as they are... Bell invented the telephone and that's a fact. Meucci tempted several times, but never succeded at the level that Bell did. If Meucci invented the telephone, then we should credit Nazi scientists for inventing the computer... that's exactly my point, prototype doesn't mean it's invented by the creator or designer of the prototype.--99.248.9.66 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "the telephone". Instead there was a series of devices that almost worked and in retrospect deserve recognition as pioneer efforts, followed by devices that worked but were not commercially practical, followed by commercially practical devices that had a lot of problems, followed by super successful products that became widely used. The problem is where do you draw the line. If you put the bar just below super successful, then Edison invented the telephone because prior to the carbon transmitter that Edison or one of his workers invented, telephone transmission across a large city was impractical. That would be setting the bar too high. If you lower the bar to include clear speech transmission over a mile long wire using electromagnetic devices, then the inventions of both Bell and Gray would qualify, but Meucci would be excluded. If you lower the bar to include Meucci, you would also have to include Reis and other pioneers. Meucci was not a crackpot as can be seen in his other patented inventions. So accusing his invention as a non-electrical "tin can on a string" is excessive. But to claim that Meucci had the basics of a Bell-like electromagnetic telephone, requires more evidence. The drawings that support his claims did not accompany his caveat and were reconstructed years later based on witness recollections. I have not seen a photo copy of his original caveat which may have been destroyed. Supporters of Meucci have a credibility problem and no amount of legislation can change that fact. To be fair to the memory of Meucci, he deserves respect along with Reis as a telephone pioneer, but not as THE inventor. Greensburger (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently, on the basis of this article, the Alexander Graham Bell article was again revised drastically to exclude Bell as the inventor of the telephone. This long-standing debate is fine on discussion pages and forums but does not represent the authoritative viewpoint of scientific and historic communities. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

This article needs to be revised to include the theory that Bell stole his invention from Gray, as documented in The Telephone Gambit. AaronSw (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He stole the invention? Bzuk (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes, apparently as of january 2008 we now have firm evidence that Bell's telephone didn't work, but after he got a look at Gray's working version, he scrapped his entire design and instead copied directly from Gray, and then was able to patent and steal the most lucrative patent ever issued. The article really needs to be fully revised in light of this new information, but I just don't have the time right now, due to school constraints. See the telephone gambit for details. — Eric Herboso 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Gray's lawyer or someone in his Washington DC office leaked the liquid transmitter idea to Bell's lawyer while Bell was still in Boston. Bell's lawyer then added the liquid transmitter and variable resistance claim to Bell's draft application. After a clerk rewrote the draft, Bell's lawyer took Bell's patent application to the patent office. When Bell arrived in Washington DC, his lawyer told Bell that the liquid transmitter idea was in both Bell's and Gray's filings and that created an interference. Bell visited the examiner and told him that he (Bell) had the idea first and showed the examiner an earlier application that used mercury as the liquid (which would not work in a telephone). The examiner then approved Bell's application and Bell's patent was issued. After it was published and Gray abandoned his caveat, Bell asked the examiner to show Gray's caveat to Bell. The examiner then showed Gray's drawings to Bell and said it used acidulated water. Bell went home and tried an acid/water transmitter and it worked. As "The Telephone Gambit" reports, Bell's lab notes show a liquid transmitter being used "face down" exactly as Gray showed in his caveat. But this was after Bell's patent had been published. Bell did not know any of this before his patent application was filed in the patent office, so Bell did not steal anything and charges of fraud were rejected by the courts.

Bell did not "scrap his entire design" and develop Gray's water transmitter. A water transmitter is impractical for a commercial telephone and Bell knew it. The importance of Bell's test of the water transmitter was it provided "proof of concept" that clear speech could be transmitted electrically. It was a scientific experiment, not development of a commercial product. Prior to that he had only an unproven theory. Bell and Watson then returned to improving the electromagnetic transmitter. When Bell demonstrated his telephone at the Centennial Exhibition in June 1876, he used his improved electromagnetic transmitter that transmitted clear speech. He did not steal Gray's invention. Greensburger (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The dispute is not disputed

I have removed the disputed tags because there is no dispute that the true "inventor" of the telephone is in dispute. Everyone agrees that there is a dispute and this article gives the various arguments pro and con for each of the claimants. Each side has a POV of course, as with all disputes, but the article itself is not in dispute and is not the personal POV of its authors. Rather the article reports on a pre-existing and well documented dispute. Greensburger (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of Meucci's invention

Near the end of this section it is stated that a certain Bill Carroll asked Meucci to produce a telephone for "scuba divers". Since Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) was developed during WW II by Dr. Christian Lambertsen it would seem that this quote may need further investigation before it is allowed to remain in the article.Gtward513 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. It may mean snorkel, but in the mean time I've removed the quote (which really must be a paraphrase, if it's not a complete hoax). Superm401 - Talk 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of writing

Please remember that this is an encyclopedia. Some of the article reads like it's instead a fond reminiscence, such as "The surprise created among the public at large by this unexpected communication will be readily remembered." Superm401 - Talk 08:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)